Re: Quantum Foam

فَاذْكُرُونِي أَذْكُرْكُمْ وَاشْكُرُوا لِي وَلَا تَكْفُرُونِ So remember Me, I will remember you and be grateful to Me and (do) not (be) ungrateful to Me. [Al-Quran 2:152 ] The Quran does not discourage the HOW questions, rather it encourages humans to

Re: Quantum Foam

You need to answer the How questions of physics, before you can properly look at the Why questions of religion (yours), and philosophy. One possibility that I find compelling (and it is never a complete answer) is that God is a Boltzmann Brain, and the Universe might be, in some fashion that

Re: Quantum Foam

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:21:29 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:17:41 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> Good question. Best answer to date is that it is Einstein's cosmological >>> constant. Virtual

Re: Quantum Foam

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:05:39 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/27/2019 11:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Quantum Foam

On 8/28/2019 11:05 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 8/27/2019 11:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:46 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> There are 2 attributes that matter has that numbers don't, and I've said > this over and over, the ability to change, and the ability to interact with > time in such a way that cause always precedes effect. And both of these > attributes

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:15 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> And both the Axiom Of Choice and the Continuum Axiom involve infinity > and physics has no use for infinity so physics doesn't care if those axioms > are true or not, so there is no way to independently determine their truth, > so stuff based

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:46:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark > > wrote: > > > yet again to who knows what because I still say "yes" to the digital > doctor. That's why I never bothered to learn Brunospeak, > > > > That is a trolling

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 8/28/2019 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How much? If you ask to much on matter for its role in preserving your consciousness, it will be no more Turing emulable. If it remains Turing emulable, then it is already emulated in the a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. But in other

Re: Quantum Foam

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/27/2019 11:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to let his theological >> beliefs influence his

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 11:36 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but you'll >> never find a program that outputs a proof of 2 + 2 = 5 in any consistent >> and sound system of axioms.* >> > >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:45 PM Jason Resch wrote: *> You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but you'll > never find a program that outputs a proof of 2 + 2 = 5 in any consistent > and sound system of axioms.* > Even if your system is consistent there is no way you can

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 27 Aug 2019, at 19:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/27/2019 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 26 Aug 2019, at 21:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/26/2019 4:19 AM,

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:37 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > if you think that there is a difference, what is it? It seems that you > > will have to invoke some attribute of your “matter” > > There are 2

Re: Quantum Foam

On 8/27/2019 11:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to let his theological beliefs influence his physics. Don Page is another such whose name springs to mind. Neumaier's

Re: Quantum Foam

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:34:35 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to let his theological >> beliefs influence his physics. Don Page is another such whose name

Re: Quantum Foam

On 28-08-2019 08:40, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:49:06 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 8/27/2019 10:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: "It's an experimentally well-confirmed fact that virtual particles exist." -

Re: Quantum Foam

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:49:06 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/27/2019 10:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > "It's an experimentally well-confirmed fact that virtual particles exist." > - >

Re: Quantum Foam

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > > Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to let his theological > beliefs influence his physics. Don Page is another such whose name springs > to mind. Neumaier's rejection of the reality of virtual particles and >

Re: Quantum Foam

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:50:37 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:43 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:14 PM Philip Thrift >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 27,